MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1166, 17 June 1911, Page 14

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

mmjuiKAlE'S CJJUKI. (Before. Mr. W. G. Kiddell, S.M.) I : ' OBJECTIONABLE POST-CARDS. A FINE IMPOSED, THE CAIiDS TO BE DESTROYED. • Minnie Eintoul, bookseller and stalioncr of Lambton Quay, was charged, on four informations, with selling certain post-cards and, on five informations, with having such post-cards in her possession for sale. The police applied for an order under the Indecent Publications Act for the destruction of certain cards found in defendant's shop when it was searched under warrant. Chief-Detectivo Brokers prosecuted, and Mr. P. AV. Jackson appeared for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty. From the evidence of the police witnesses, it appeared th.it Constable'Atkinson called at defendant's shop on two occasions whilo in plain clothes, and purchased post-card 9 in respect to which the first four informations were laid. Detective Lewis then procured a search warrant, and, in company with ' Sergeant liutledge, visited the shop, and seized over five, hundred post-cards, which formed the subject of the remaining informations. Chief-Detective Broberg said that it was admitted that defendant was a respectable woman. If his AVorship held that a conviction was to be recorded on each series of informations, tho prosecution was willing t& withdraw three of the first four informations, and four of tho five in the other series. Mr. Jackson, for the defence, did not proposo to call evidence. The sale of the cards''was admitted, but it was denied that they were such as described in tho charge.' It would, no doubt, bo possible to find a number of people in Wellington who'would say that the post-cards were of that nature, .and, on tho other hand, it would be easy to find a number who would state that they were not. The question, however, was whai his AVorship thought of them. Counsel submitted that u definition of the term "indecent" was "something that would shock tho_ mora) senses." It could not be said thai these post-cards were such, though they migl'.l be vulgar, and indelicate. They wore, however, nothing worse than what were seen in newspapers, or at picture theatres, or in real life at many of the musichalls. ■ If his AVorship "ruled . that thoj wore such as the charge set out, counsel submitted that, under Section 5, his client still had the defence that she had not acted with an immoral or mischievous tendency. Mrs. Rintoul was a respectable woman, the sole support of herself and family, and she was quite new to the business. She made no secret of selling the cards, and her act was that of an innocent person. No doubt someone had complained, but not to defendant. Had she received any complaint, she would have desiro.yed' tho cards. No evidence had been adduced to show, that her conduct in having possession of the cards was an act with an immcral or mischievous tendency. The magistrate remarked that he had looked through the postcards, and had como to the conclnsim that a number, were indecent, and that some w.ere not. Although defendant had stated that she was unaware that they came within the meaning of tho wording in the Act, sho should, nevertheless have made herself acquainted with the, nature of its provisions. There «ero r.iimero'js 'postcards of all sorts and descriptions, and, if slip choso to'deal in them, she must make herself acquainted with the law. It seemed perfectly clear that certain of the postcards were of a certain nature, and a conviction must be recorded. Mr. Jackson asked if his AA'orship found that there was "an immoral and mis:hievons tendency." His AVorship replied that, as the cards :ould have been viewed by persons of all iges, he was of opinion that their sale md exhibition would have a mischievous ondency. On tho first of each series of charges a ino of £1 was imposed, the alternative jeing seven days' imprisonment. The it her charges were withdrawn by leavef the Court. '

I . The magistrate will to-day decide what c. number of postcards are to be destroyed. ■t NOT CONTIGUOUS. )9 On the information of the City Corpor)l ation inspector, John Duignan, as owner II of certain lands fronting Glenbervie Ter--10 race, a,street of the city of Wcil'u»ton, 13 was charged with failin" to complf- with 14 a notice to fence the land. There was ;0 a similar information against Charles ■° Sl ™ a S ! i a »' ths ""'nor of another section. 3 r Ih, H V who appoßTed 0 [or defendants, suggested that tho cases 0 be taken together, and this procedure 0 l va L;!P? cl ' t0 ; T'ic city solicitor (.Mr. _. J. U bhea) conducted the i-ase for the Citv 3 Corporation. J After a lengthy hearing, his Worship stated that ho was satisfied that a strip of land, between the street aud tho •*■£. tions. referred. to, stood in the name "of some other person. There must be some contiguity With His street before defendants could be held liable, and that ha; not been proved The informations woul , ?n%I,TS CO^- ellS -' bein S»llowcd . CONDEMNED BUILDINGS. 1 ' John Thomas Martin, owner of mo - mia* at IGS Eintoul Street. Shaded not 1 eui ty to a charge of failing I *. l ft * n 7 °h«> }o pull down I condemned 1 \mulL^vT\\ Dt hr ! f ! P ullcil down one ;«^?Ad^ nd t^V? ■ \ the aPPeared ; b !^l^rad^d o S^lJd Q t mM(, , |>o understood defend watnn,Wo to comply with the notice, and tho ™1 Poration would therefore undertake 'Z expense of pulling tho build™ ( mv n in order was accordingly i„ at [ o {o ° r he wov to bo dono .within fourteen day' a f ,W s corporation's expense. 3 ' he OP SMALL VALUE Perty of Easson and Companv. l Ar?"r tFtv™ Sheehn , n P»»sw»ted, and . 1 1 ,^ lx for both accused who pleaded not guilty. '"-ciuea, After hearing the evidence, (ho ma-is-trato remarked that the value of the «ood wassma 1, and it was doubtful if it even amounted (0 4s. 3d. It was evident that the unions bctw.cn the pa ( were not of tho best. There was a con fiict of evidence as to the lonsrh of X Umber, and, as the timber had been ve. turned, his Worship did not think tint " it was a case where a penalty should be imposed, and he was not prepared to even record a conviction. The information would be dismissed. u " TRUANCY CASES. For failing to send children to school David Mason and Emma Wilkes, who did not appear, were fined ss. each, and ordered to pay court costs, 7s. The fol lowing defendants, charged with similar offences, were lined 2s. each, and ordered to pay court costs 75., in each case — Charles Avery, Joseph Brough, V H Leathern, Richard Pye, Frederick M'Fadden, Andrew Cassic, George Ness, Thcinas Dayes, and Thomas Scorringe. OTHER CASES. ' Kate Sweeney, charged with insobrietv was declared a habitual inebriate, arid sentenced to a month's imprisonment For procuring liquor during the currency of a prohibition order, the same accused was convicted and discharged. Michael Walsh, charged with boin" helplessly unsober, was remanded for a week for medical treatment. On charges of drunkenness, James M'Gee, Alexander Campbell, and Alexander Stuart Munro were fined 10s. each, ~ the option being 48 hours' imprisonment.' Two first-offending inebriates wero fined ss. each, with the usual alternative, and another first offender (11 female) was convicted and discharged. Edward O'Neill was sentenced to a month's imprisonment for a certain act , in Customhouse Quay.